Of course I do, dear! I loooove stereotypes called woman. And it's obvious You'll need some more "male stereotypes here". After all we all here love Royals and I, myself, also find Monarchy, as a constitution, above others. But of course we cant't have Royals more and more common. I know my limits and stand up for them. Some common girls and boys may have been good for their Royal partners, but, come on - - they aren't good for the Country they represents, and then they will be increasing the burden for the Monarch, and for Monarchy.

I agree on that-completely. And thatīs why Iīm (among other things) no Monarchist (practically I live in a republic...with some faults though). Sooner or later Royals will extinct themselves, when they will go on with marrying ordinary ppl, leading jet set lives and so on. Ppl will start to ask, what makes them so special, so "high born", that the get the highest position in the state promised-with the first cry they do.
But what an improvement makes Daniel here

I think basically you have to consider 2 things:

1. Past and Future

2. Perception (appearance) and Reality

ad1) You say, that we shouldnīt judge Daniel, for something he isnīt so far. Maybe he will be the perfect prince (Even though this would contradict your statement: "they aren't good for the Country they represents, and then they will be increasing the burden for the Monarch, and for Monarchy. ")But when itīs a moral problem to judge something, that is in the future, why is it then ok to judge the past ofa Royal, when he or she was still a commoner? You seem to point out, that we should judge the qualities of a Royal, when he/she is doing the job, but at the same time, you talk negatively about the pasts of some. So please fairness for all and not just for the person, you seem to like.

ad2) Both sides, the journalists and Daniel (+ the court) work with appearance.
The journalists never said "Daniel is stupid, his english is bad..." They just say "sources said, Daniel is"..."Sources said, that the king said, Daniel is..."And they publish his Högskoleprovet-result, his grades, his tax declaration...and they have also published explanations for bad results or a strange tax declaration. I donīt say, that these journalists do good work and produce fair well-balanced journalism, but what I say is, that they always leave some space for interpretation (mainly to let themselves seem as being the good ones). Itīs UP to the people, to build an opinion.
And heaven knows, we here have tried to point out all sides. You will find pages filled with possible explanations for his bad result in this högskoleprovet. We have accepted Danielīs explanation for his bad grades in high school. And just the same do a lot of Swedish ppl in Swedish forums. When you start to talk about Danielīs intelligence, then itīs YOU, who believes, that ppl could think, he isnīt the sharpest knife in the drawer. And why do you believe so?

As Iīve said also Daniel works with appearance. What you have written about his gyms is on the one hand true, on the other hand it includes a lot of stuff, that was just said of Daniel. He and his colleague (who obviously left the gym) told us about a lot of projects, they wanted to do in the past years. They told us about a project in a hotel, they talked about a concept like the german chain McFit (which is a big chain, with low prices and less service), they talked about opening a third luxury gym, they talked about offering skiing and golfing trips, now Daniel talks about starting a chain for a broader range of customers. Daniel poses in a suit for Swedenīs biggest financial newspaper for the second time.
Fact is: He owns 70% of two gyms and Master Training had a turnover of 9 millions SEK last year.
This isnīt bad...and his step to start with a friend a luxury gym in 2000 should be admired ( I wouldnīt have dared this step), but isnīt it a bit strange to make Daniel (in your mind...or the peopleīs minds) to a manager of a big chain?

Itīs good, that you think firstly positively about a person. But does this mean, you are at this point closer to reality, than people who criticise Daniel, or who have no clear opinion?

I agree on that-completely. And thatīs why Iīm (among other things) no Monarchist (practically I live in a republic...with some faults though). Sooner or later Royals will extinct themselves, when they will go on with marrying ordinary ppl, leading jet set lives and so on. Ppl will start to ask, what makes them so special, so "high born", that the get the highest position in the state promised-with the first cry they do.

I don't think It's about "high borne" nowdays when Royals get married. Queen Sonja and Queen Silva are among examples of them who still have succeeded well.It's morely about Your "upbringing" and having good behavior and, particularly being a Royal, a question of knowing all about "etiquette".

About You're for Republic:(It would be interesting with a forum about Republic! Are there any - If NO - why not)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

But what an improvement makes Daniel here

I think basically you have to consider 2 things:

1. Past and Future

2. Perception (appearance) and Reality

ad1) You say, that we shouldnīt judge Daniel, for something he isnīt so far. Maybe he will be the perfect prince (Even though this would contradict your statement: "they aren't good for the Country they represents, and then they will be increasing the burden for the Monarch, and for Monarchy. ")

Me saying: "they aren't good for the Country they represents, and then they will be increasing the burden for the Monarch, and for Monarchy" - is about people who already are married to Royals. I'ts not good att all and worse if they are going on the same way, outliving jetset-life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

But when itīs a moral problem to judge something, that is in the future, why is it then ok to judge the past of

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

a Royal, when he or she was still a commoner? You seem to point out, that we should judge the qualities of a Royal, when he/she is doing the job, but at the same time, you talk negatively about the pasts of some. So please fairness for all and not just for the person, you seem to like.

If CP Victoria, or an other Royal person in an other country, will marry a person having drougproblems, former living in a dope den, with children together with an other girl, having phobias, frights with common things a Royal have to manage, I can assue You I'll not have positive reactions... Victoria still a single Royalwoman, and Mr Westling havn't been using drugs, isn't a father, hav'nt been living in a dope den. We don't know of any phobias and he's not engaged to anyone I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

ad2) Both sides, the journalists and Daniel (+ the court) work with appearance.
The journalists never said "Daniel is stupid, his english is bad..." They just say "sources said, Daniel is"..."Sources said, that the king said, Daniel is..."And they publish his Högskoleprovet-result, his grades, his tax declaration...and they have also published explanations for bad results or a strange tax declaration. I donīt say, that these journalists do good work and produce fair well-balanced journalism, but what I say is, that they always leave some space for interpretation (mainly to let themselves seem as being the good ones). Itīs UP to the people, to build an opinion.
And heaven knows, we here have tried to point out all sides. You will find pages filled with possible explanations for his bad result in this högskoleprovet. We have accepted Danielīs explanation for his bad grades in high school. And just the same do a lot of Swedish ppl in Swedish forums.

I could'nt care less about Daniel and "högskoleprovet" then I do. Einstein didn't suceed well in scool and literary researchers says W. A Mozart had a form of word blindness, dyslexia. And I say: We only know Mr Daniel Westling as a friend of CP Victoria. Leave Mr Westilig at this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

When you start to talk about Danielīs intelligence, then itīs YOU, who believes, that ppl could think, he isnīt the sharpest knife in the drawer. And why do you believe so?

I don't! You are bad informed. It wasn't me writing about "Daniels intelligence" at first. It'suninteresting at the very moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

As Iīve said also Daniel works with appearance. What you have written about his gyms is on the one hand true, on the other hand it includes a lot of stuff, that was just said of Daniel. He and his colleague (who obviously left the gym) told us about a lot of projects, they wanted to do in the past years. They told us about a project in a hotel, they talked about a concept like the german chain McFit (which is a big chain, with low prices and less service), they talked about opening a third luxury gym, they talked about offering skiing and golfing trips, now Daniel talks about starting a chain for a broader range of customers. Daniel poses in a suit for Swedenīs biggest financial newspaper for the second time.
Fact is: He owns 70% of two gyms and Master Training had a turnover of 9 millions SEK last year.
This isnīt bad...and his step to start with a friend a luxury gym in 2000 should be admired ( I wouldnīt have dared this step), but isnīt it a bit strange to make Daniel (in your mind...or the peopleīs minds) to a manager of a big chain?

It was a big misstake of me quoting an newspaper article when I tryed to do an example. Neither You or me will know the trouth. And I could'nt care less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

Itīs good, that you think firstly positively about a person. But does this mean, you are at this point closer to reality, than people who criticise Daniel, or who have no clear opinion?

If You ask me about Mr Westling as a private person doing buisness in one way or another, I'm no interested having an opinion. I don't care! If Mr Westling official will be engaged to a Royal person I will be interested learning about him and what he is doing and how he does it - if he do, or stay at home...

I don't think It's about "high borne" nowdays when Royals get married. Queen Sonja and Queen Silva are among examples of them who still have succeeded well.It's morely about Your "upbringing" and having good behavior and, particularly being a Royal, a question of knowing all about "etiquette".

Etiquette is something that can be learned. If Daniel or whomever is unawares in which fork to use at dinner, they can easily learn that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

If CP Victoria, or an other Royal person in an other country, will marry a person [...] having phobias, frights with common things a Royal have to manage, I can assue You I'll not have positive reactions... Victoria still a single Royalwoman, and Mr Westling havn't been using drugs, isn't a father, hav'nt been living in a dope den. We don't know of any phobias and he's not engaged to anyone I know.

Did not realize that having a phobia or having fears was such an unroyal thing! That must mean that royals are super human, are never afraid of things whether it's spiders or taking chances. No wonder they get to wear crowns and live in palaces!

Well, since Daniel is apparently scared of nothing that we know of then Victoria must marry him immediately! Such a man is a rare species!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

I could'nt care less about Daniel and "högskoleprovet" then I do. Einstein didn't suceed well in scool and literary researchers says W. A Mozart had a form of word blindness, dyslexia.

Strange isn't it that Daniel is afraid of nothing but yet he's not super intelligent. Did the Swedes take a poll and decide that they would prefer a future consort who is fearless rather than superior in intellegence? I wonder what choice I would make if I had to choose: Someone who is scared of things like everyone else I know or someone who is Mensa material. Wow it is like Sophie's choice! :p

Etiquette is something that can be learned. If Daniel or whomever is unawares in which fork to use at dinner, they can easily learn that.

Well, Daniel Isn't an official person yet so I,ll don't see why You compaire him with one? When, and if, Victoria are to be engaged her former husband must have permittion not only by HM The King, but also by the Swedish government from the Primeminister. After that a man who will be CP Victorias fiancé also, by himself, have agreed he's "an official". Then he "must play the game". When and if it will be a weddng we don't know for sure. After an imagined wedding and after CP Victorias bridegroom answerd his "Yes" we can look up on him as a member of The Swedish Royal family. Some months after a suposed honeymoon I'll be happy to discus the Swedish Crownprincessconsort - and "his habits" - good or not so good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Did not realize that having a phobia or having fears was such an unroyal thing! That must mean that royals are super human, are never afraid of things whether it's spiders or taking chances. No wonder they get to wear crowns and live in palaces!

The late Queen Louise of Sweden once said in an interwiew when a journalist asked her about how she felt "nowdays": "A Queen have two choises! 1. Being in a cheerful mood. 2. Being dead." Yes, I do belive Royals have to be above others and I do belive they have obligations almost unhuman. I will be very worried for Monarchy if we don't have the same craves on them that we'll have on other head of states. And just because Royals are above Presidents in official acts they must at least have the same dutys and offers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Well, since Daniel is apparently scared of nothing that we know of then Victoria must marry him immediately! Such a man is a rare species!

Daniel? Who? Oh, You must be thinking about one of CP Victorias friends. I don't know much about him only lots of speculations in scandalmagazines. In official Sweden he's "nobody", and the Royal court don't mention any "Daniel" and don't comment him in official states. So there are no "Daniel" to discus and compare with person who have accepted being Royals and officials.

If Victoria will meet a man to love, let's hope he has a good reputation and is known as an honest, honourable person without scandals. And of course I find it necessary measures finding out he is healthy, because it will be hard work being a Crownprincessconsort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Strange isn't it that Daniel is afraid of nothing but yet he's not super intelligent. Did the Swedes take a poll and decide that they would prefer a future consort who is fearless rather than superior in intellegence? I wonder what choice I would make if I had to choose: Someone who is scared of things like everyone else I know or someone who is Mensa material. Wow it is like Sophie's choice! :p

Not intelligent? Who? What? Why? Whome? What Daniel? I have a friend, Daniel Sjögren! Do You know him? He is quite a man!

(We have no one namned "Daniel" in The Swedish Royal family so I find no ground going on discussing a private person on a forum aimed for Royal officials).

Im no specialist in psychiatry,but what have intelligence with courage to do?

We don't have a Crownprincessconsort in Sweden so You have been badly informed. And I myself, I don't know anything about it, but a lot of gossip and tittle-tattle is going on among wild gesticulating persons eager to know more then there are to say at the very moment.

To be honest I think Daniel has a weird look, and his eyes are not very expressive (maybe I'm wrong but it is my impression when I look at him), but anyway I liked to read your reasons and the way you articulate your arguments. Congratulations, very interesting.

To be honest I think Daniel has a weird look, and his eyes are not very expressive (maybe I'm wrong but it is my impression when I look at him), but anyway I liked to read your reasons and the way you articulate your arguments. Congratulations, very interesting.

Today in Swedens no 1 morningpaper "Dagens Nyheter" (News of today) Victoria said "My love havingf black hair, warm eys, black hair, walking on four legs, having a warm black nose -I'ts my dog" -se said! - when journalists in China asked. I find no point in comparing a personel friend of Victorias, or a dog, with officials, though I find her dog cute ... Let Victoria be together with her friends. I wouldn't dare being a friendof a Royal when people go on so hard on them. If I took a job near a Royal I would have had a chanse saying - NO! But if Victoria and all other young Royals around the world can't have friends it's really bad. If someone becomes fiancé I'm sure we'll know about it. But for Gods sake - let Youngsters be Youngsters until theyīve admitted being officials.

Well, Daniel Isn't an official person yet so I,ll don't see why You compaire him with one?

How did I compare him to an official person? I simply said that etiquette is something that anyone, such as Daniel, can learn from classes if he is unawares of such things. Please read my posts carefully and do not put words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

Daniel? Who? Oh, You must be thinking about one of CP Victorias friends. I don't know much about him only lots of speculations in scandalmagazines. In official Sweden he's "nobody", and the Royal court don't mention any "Daniel" and don't comment him in official states. So there are no "Daniel" to discus and compare with person who have accepted being Royals and officials.

You must have a short memory. Or convenient memory lost. How is it that you can discuss Daniel whenever it suits you as an official person or not, but when others want to he suddenly doesn't exist?

Perhaps a memory refresher is necessary? Here is a choice quote by you (the royal blue font is the clue that it's a post by you), originally posted on September 30:

Quote:

ABOUT Mr Daniel Westling:
I must remind You we have former drougusing outliving persons who have married Royals. Some even having children with other "common" petty bourgeois persons.

Journalists have been searching for scandals about Daniel Westling for years but still don't found anything worth writing about. So whats to do when You can't find anything negative to say? Oh Yes: Find up something!

He is ugly. (I don't matter if he is ladies, You aren't dating him).

He haven't good manors? Says who? Meting him when...? He still havnt attended official together with Royals or other officials.

He is not intelligent! (What's wrong doing company management - - last year the company's turnover was 21 million kronor and he's still expends with a new hotel with spa- and sports department). Prince Henrik of Denmark having winerys and I can't find It better or worse. Daniels buisness is more modern into the 21th century. Many of the girls who have been dating some Royal "lads" havn't been working in very glamorous professions, but some still have been good wifes to their "Prince". Nobody should be condemd at all, especially not by us, and not as a Royal when he aren't.

If You have to dicuss Daniels qualitys dont't do by looks and not as a Princes consort when he isn't. He is doing buisness as a manger of gyms, coming hotel and healthservices. Mark an exam of his buisness if You must, and while doing why don't look for drugusing in younger days, having childdren with other women and outliving like some girls marrying a certin Crown Prince... You'll have to work hard to find anything nearly like these scandals on Daniel - PROMISE!

Before Daniel plenty of women were discussed in relations to royals whether or not they were engaged. When she was merely Mary Donaldson of Australia, Mary was known in Denmark and Australia as Crown Prince Ferederik's girlfriend. So why not fair play for Daniel Westling? He may not exist officially but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

Not intelligent? Who? What? Why? Whome? What Daniel? I have a friend, Daniel Sjögren! Do You know him? He is quite a man!

Nice to know you have friends. Say hi to your friend Daniel for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

(We have no one namned "Daniel" in The Swedish Royal family so I find no ground going on discussing a private person on a forum aimed for Royal officials).

See the above quoted post by you. You certainly found ground to discuss how not good looking he was, how unintelligent he is, and about how no scandal has been unearthed about him. So why can you discuss him even if he doesn't actually exist to you but I cannot? Seems hypocritcal to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

Im no specialist in psychiatry,but what have intelligence with courage to do?

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up. You said that royals should be free of phobias and fears so they must be strong and courageous I guess, and you're the one who said that Daniel was unintelligent and that even Einstein was no Einstein. ... What does psychiatry have to do with this? Are you a pyschiatrist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karisma

We don't have a Crownprincessconsort in Sweden so You have been badly informed. And I myself, I don't know anything about it, but a lot of gossip and tittle-tattle is going on among wild gesticulating persons eager to know more then there are to say at the very moment.

I'm not uninformed about anything on this topic. I never once said that Victoria was engaged to Daniel or to anyone else. I was simply discussing some of the points raised here by you. So if discussion is considered "tittle-tattle" then I guess that's what's been going on here.

I agree, that itīs very interesting to read your posts, Karisma.
But generally I agree with Genevieve.
A lot you write, is about hypocrisy and about Royals you donīt seem to like (letīs name her: crown princess Mette Marit)

When you think, that Daniel isnīt an official person, people shouldnīt talk about right now, why are talking then here so much about him?
We are well aware, that Daniel isnīt an official member of the Royal family. But we see him attending an official Ice hockey game with Victoria, we see him with the Royal parents, we heard her earlier talking about Daniel (and not just only about her dogs...btw. I think mentioned Jambo is a blond dog and I think she has also decribed him as blond. Dark hair has only Daniel :p ), and even the court commented a few times on Daniel. So why should we ignore him and shouldnīt talk about him? Obviously he isnīt hiding in the cellar of his appartment house, but is step by step doing things, that a prince would do.

Crown princess Victoria suffered from anorexia, crown princess Mette Marit was afraid of flying. Both have sought help and are cured. So what is the difference? And how would you argue, that Victoria, a born Royal and daughter of a king (with Royal/noble parents) and the perfectly fitting commoner Silvia, suffered also from a mental problem (???)

BTW I wonder, if you tell as principal bad students also, that Mozart and Einstein were failures at school

How did I compare him to an official person? I simply said that etiquette is something that anyone, such as Daniel, can learn from classes if he is unawares of such things. Please read my posts carefully and do not put words in my mouth.

A person isn't official only because there's gossip around her/him. When You're a Royal person, President, Primeminister or leading politician You've choose to be a part of the Establishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

You must have a short memory. Or convenient memory lost. How is it that you can discuss Daniel whenever it suits you as an official person or not, but when others want to he suddenly doesn't exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Perhaps a memory refresher is necessary? Here is a choice quote by you (the royal blue font is the clue that it's a post by you), originally posted on September 30:

It was a trying to explain Mr Westling isn't an official (public). Some did understand my points, others obviously don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Before Daniel plenty of women were discussed in relations to royals whether or not they were engaged. When she was merely Mary Donaldson of Australia, Mary was known in Denmark and Australia as Crown Prince Ferederik's girlfriend. So why not fair play for Daniel Westling? He may not exist officially but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all.

I havn't been a member very long and know nothing about discussions before middle of august 2005.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

Nice to know you have friends. Say hi to your friend Daniel for me.

I do hope You too have some friends too, being a pleasant person. Mr Sjögren will have Your greeting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

See the above quoted post by you. You certainly found ground to discuss how not good looking he was, how unintelligent he is, and about how no scandal has been unearthed about him. So why can you discuss him even if he doesn't actually exist to you but I cannot? Seems hypocritcal to me.

You can discus what You like to do (if webmaster don't mind). My point is: Don't compare a privat person with Royals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up. You said that royals should be free of phobias and fears so they must be strong and courageous I guess, and you're the one who said that Daniel was unintelligent and that even Einstein was no Einstein. ... What does psychiatry have to do with this? Are you a pyschiatrist?

Please read what I've been writing. Is it Mr Sjögren You're speeking about when You name Einstein?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve

I'm not uninformed about anything on this topic. I never once said that Victoria was engaged to Daniel or to anyone else. I was simply discussing some of the points raised here by you. So if discussion is considered "tittle-tattle" then I guess that's what's been going on here.

I'm not very well informed agout "tittle-tattle" and I havn't read everything in this forum but I follow official announcements with great interest.

I agree, that itīs very interesting to read your posts, Karisma.
But generally I agree with Genevieve.
A lot you write, is about hypocrisy and about Royals you donīt seem to like (letīs name her: crown princess Mette Marit)

I havn't been compairing any Royal person with another, and definitely not any private person with a Royal person.

You, Yourself mention a Norwegian Royal. I don't think she belongs here! I could think about many other Royals from Europe though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

When you think, that Daniel isnīt an official person, people shouldnīt talk about right now, why are talking then here so much about him?
We are well aware, that Daniel isnīt an official member of the Royal family. But we see him attending an official Ice hockey game with Victoria, we see him with the Royal parents, we heard her earlier talking about Daniel (and not just only about her dogs...btw. I think mentioned Jambo is a blond dog and I think she has also decribed him as blond. Dark hair has only Daniel :p ), and even the court commented a few times on Daniel. So why should we ignore him and shouldnīt talk about him? Obviously he isnīt hiding in the cellar of his appartment house, but is step by step doing things, that a prince would do.

I have the paper "Dagens Nyheter" at my side and Victoria speaks about a black, hairy dog with four legs and a big, black, wet nose. It doesn't matter! She could be making it up or a journalist had it all wrong. Did - didn't! Who knows? Let's don't argue about that detail.

When the court commented Mr Westling it was as a friend among friends.

I don't know what a former Crownprincessconsort would do because at the very moment there are only one Crownprincess in Europe (whome I know about) becomming a head of state. I havn't a clue what a person who is to become CP Victorias fiancé must do the day the Royal Court give an announcement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

Crown princess Victoria suffered from anorexia, crown princess Mette Marit was afraid of flying. Both have sought help and are cured. So what is the difference? And how would you argue, that Victoria, a born Royal and daughter of a king (with Royal/noble parents) and the perfectly fitting commoner Silvia, suffered also from a mental problem (???)

Your lines above is far away to low for me. :( I could include lots and lots of European Royals having had problems, living jet-set lives and being unfaithful to their wifes, drugusing, abusing alcohol and so on. But it isn't what this thread is about. And it wouldn't be a dignified discussion here. I, myself, think I'll drop it and let them who bury oneself in one's studies of spiteful things dig deeper with more and more dirt under there nailes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

BTW I wonder, if you tell as principal bad students also, that Mozart and Einstein were failures at school

I havn't been compairing any Royal person with another, and definitely not any private person with a Royal person.

You, Yourself mention a Norwegian Royal. I don't think she belongs here! I could think about many other Royals from Europe though.

I have the paper "Dagens Nyheter" at my side and Victoria speaks about a black, hairy dog with four legs and a big, black, wet nose. It doesn't matter! She could be making it up or a journalist had it all wrong. Did - didn't! Who knows? Let's don't argue about that detail.

When the court commented Mr Westling it was as a friend among friends.

I don't know what a former Crownprincessconsort would do because at the very moment there are only one Crownprincess in Europe (whome I know about) becomming a head of state. I havn't a clue what a person who is to become CP Victorias fiancé must do the day the Royal Court give an announcement.

Your lines above is far away to low for me. :( I could include lots and lots of European Royals having had problems, living jet-set lives and being unfaithful to their wifes, drugusing, abusing alcohol and so on. But it isn't what this thread is about. And it wouldn't be a dignified discussion here. I, myself, think I'll drop it and let them who bury oneself in one's studies of spiteful things dig deeper with more and more dirt under there nailes.

You can be sure I do! :)

Come on, donīt play here the innocent! I hate to discuss on a level, where one person doesnīt name things, but everyone knows, who is meant. And when one is asked directly, the person say "Why do you think, Iīve meant this person?"
I donīt want to discuss mental problems on a low level. I want ppl accepting, that some persons have problems and need support. No matter to which class, they belong.
All which came from you was, that Royals with a mental problem donīt deserve a positive reaction (from you) :

Quote:

If CP Victoria, or an other Royal person in an other country, will marry a person having drougproblems, former living in a dope den, with children together with an other girl, having phobias, frights with common things a Royal have to manage, I can assue You I'll not have positive reactions... Victoria still a single Royalwoman, and Mr Westling havn't been using drugs, isn't a father, hav'nt been living in a dope den. We don't know of any phobias and he's not engaged to anyone I know.

I'm not playing anything, dear! I'm in the right having an opinion. But don't put words into my mouth. Please read what I'm writing and don't use Your interpretation about it. I'll try to respect Your opinion. Try to respect mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

I hate to discuss on a level, where one person doesnīt name things, but everyone knows, who is meant.

You seem to be spiteful! It's not good for Your pressure. Calm down a little bit would be good for You.

I don't think You have got powers of reasoning and can read my mind taking into consideration it seam to be clear You have misunderstood the issue in my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

And when one is asked directly, the person say "Why do you think, Iīve meant this person?"

And You havn't answerd my question Yet. "Why do you think, Iīve meant this person?"You are the one doing an interpretation this time too! Perheps It's better for You fleeing from reality and put Your words into other persons mouth? Don't jump on to others - answer for Your own opinion. I can stand up for mine and know what I have had in my mind. But what You think You know it's not the same as You can know what I have what have been thinking about. That's arrogance!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

I donīt want to discuss mental problems on a low level. I want ppl accepting, that some persons have problems and need support. No matter to which class, they belong.

Well, if You want to discuss mental problems there are other forums better then "The Royal Forums".

Healthy or sick- everyone must become aware of their limits. And if they don't do they will need help getting awareness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

All which came from you was, that Royals with a mental problem donīt deserve a positive reaction (from you) :

You think You are an expert reading other persons minds? Don't! I'll suggest You try harder reading what people realy are writing and not let Your feelings run away with You making Your own interprtation about what You think other people may be tinking. It is in the best conceivable manner both commoners and Royals don't make unfounded allegations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

And at the same time you talked about inappropriate commoners.

Speaking about what's appropriate:"There are things You've got to be a specilist not to understand".

I'm not playing anything, dear! I'm in the right having an opinion. But don't put words into my mouth. Please read what I'm writing and don't use Your interpretation about it. I'll try to respect Your opinion. Try to respect mine.

You seem to be spiteful! It's not good for Your pressure. Calm down a little bit would be good for You.

I don't think You have got powers of reasoning and can read my mind taking into consideration it seam to be clear You have misunderstood the issue in my mind.

And You havn't answerd my question Yet. "Why do you think, Iīve meant this person?"You are the one doing an interpretation this time too! Perheps It's better for You fleeing from reality and put Your words into other persons mouth? Don't jump on to others - answer for Your own opinion. I can stand up for mine and know what I have had in my mind. But what You think You know it's not the same as You can know what I have what have been thinking about. That's arrogance!

Well, if You want to discuss mental problems there are other forums better then "The Royal Forums".

Healthy or sick- everyone must become aware of their limits. And if they don't do they will need help getting awareness.

You think You are an expert reading other persons minds? Don't! I'll suggest You try harder reading what people realy are writing and not let Your feelings run away with You making Your own interprtation about what You think other people may be tinking. It is in the best conceivable manner both commoners and Royals don't make unfounded allegations.

Speaking about what's appropriate:"There are things You've got to be a specilist not to understand".

I canīt read minds, but I can read your former posts. Please delete them, when you donīt want us to expose your contradictions
This post will be my last one in this discussion with you on this matter. I think, Iīve done enough to prove you wrong...:p If you want, you can interpret it as capitulation, I donīt care. :p :)

I just can hope that the word "principal" in your profile is a lie. Or that you unload your frustration and your injustice on MBs, but nowhere else. Otherwise: poor kids.
For us, itīs some kind of awkward fun (combined with a shake of the head) to read your stuff. Students would be in a way dependent from you :(

I canīt read minds, but I can read your former posts. Please delete them, when you donīt want us to expose your contradictions
This post will be my last one in this discussion with you on this matter. I think, Iīve done enough to prove you wrong...:p If you want, you can interpret it as capitulation, I donīt care. :p :)

Former posts in an other threads about other persons is'nt about what this particular thred deals with. You must have been mixing up one thing with another. Let's try deal with this thread here and another thred somewere else. When You write about "contradictions" it's an interpretation from You, and worse: You speak about "us". You aren't a spokesperson for anyone but Yourself! I've got lots of e-mail from persons sayin "Thank's for raise a lively debate"... What's worring me is the one's don't dare to say their thougts here. Why? Well, "some people on The Royal Forum don't seem to like people with other opinions", they say. For me it's a warning signal when people can't speek free.

It's not about being right or wrong, it's about the right to have an opinion. So if You've been writing to "prove" anything it have been a total failure for You. But I've liked to hear Your opinions thougt, and I do respect them.

I'm not the one doing interpretation on You. I read Your words and answer You with my opinion on what You're writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

I just can hope that the word "principal" in your profile is a lie. Or that you unload your frustration and your injustice on MBs, but nowhere else. Otherwise: poor kids.
For us, itīs some kind of awkward fun (combined with a shake of the head) to read your stuff. Students would be in a way dependent from you :(

I'm not used with lies, and don't do them! It was a tactless, immature, remark . You are still jumping on to others, trying to read minds, when You involve my work into this discussion. You havn't a clou about my occupation, how I do work, in what grade I'm working and what type of Schoolbuisniss I'm a leader of. You imagine it's "poor kids". Who have said anything about kids, and why "poor"? Interpretation again!

First: I'ts all about Your imagination.Second: I can't see I've been discussing Your or other members profession here, and I don't thing we ought to do so eigther. But when You mention it: At least I have the courage writing in my profile I'm a principal, headmaster, dean = head of schoolbusiness. I am for sure! And I'm doing A good job, having independent students learning to be critical to a source of error and standing up for their opinion.

To Karisma and Lena:
I dont want to act police here, but why dont you take your discussion by PMīs instead?
It has nothing to do with Daniel anymore and that is what this thread is about.

peace :)

I can't agree more! But webmasters don't like when You write PM:s if not invited. I've been doing that misstake when I was a newbe. :o

If we only can be tolerant with other peoples opinions it would'nt be problems. Discussion abov is very much about me having an opinion about another Royal person. There were many menbers who didn't like my opinion and told me in a polite way. It's OK with me, but when making conclusions about my person and seeking dirt about other Royals, just to prove other Royals having problems too, it's not OK. I'll try to go back to writing about my interests here - Royals. Thank You very much for Your opinion!

To Karisma and Lena:
I dont want to act police here, but why dont you take your discussion by PMīs instead?
It has nothing to do with Daniel anymore and that is what this thread is about.

peace :)

Well, Yennie, I agree, that such a discussion should maybe lead on in PMs.
But as Iīve said, I donīt want to talk to him anymore.
But I will willingly go on to talk with the ppl, who congratulated me (via PM) for facing Karismaīs contradictions.